[IP] more on The Shadow Internet
------ Forwarded Message
From: "J. Paul Reed" <preed@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:39:07 -0800
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ip <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <bram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on The Shadow Internet
On 30 Dec 2004 at 13:13:39, David Farber arranged the bits on my disk to
say:
> I strongly agree but don't think it is just poor use of words, It has a
> very specific use and aim which is NOT nice.
I'm actually very disappointed in Wired's coverage of this topic; there
were a number of claims in the article leaving me saying "this journalist
just doesn't get it."
Cases in point:
"All hell's about to break loose," says Brad Burnham, a venture
capitalist with Union Square Ventures in Manhattan, which studies the
impact of new technology on traditional media. BitTorrent does not
require the wires or airwaves that the cable and network giants have
spent billions constructing and buying.
BZZZT! Where do most people get their home internet connections from? Cable
companies or telcos. Therefore, any internet-related activity, including
BitTorrent *requires* those pesky wires cable companies (and telcos) have
spent billions constructing. And the reliance on those "pesky wires" is
just going to increase as the "DarkNet phenomena" causes a greater demand
for bandwidth. (And before you point out "Ooh, wireless!" the internet is
not wireless; your pirated copy of Fat Albert is *going* to hit a wire
somewhere, and that's where content producers are going to attack this
problem.)
Cable companies especially are already aware of this, and will "have a
chat with you" (by shutting down your connection) if you actually call
their "unlimited internet" bluff. (Comcast is known to do this.)
"One example of how the world has already changed: Gary Lerhaupt, a
graduate student in computer science at Stanford, became fascinated with
Outfoxed, the documentary critical of Fox News, and thought more people
should see it. ... But to get the ball rolling, Lerhaupt's site needed
to serve up only 5 gigs. After that, the peers took over and hosted it
themselves. His bill for that bandwidth? $4. There are drinks at
Starbucks that cost more."
This statement is entirely misleading; 5 gigs of bandwidth cost $4? Well...
no actually; I'm sure if you ask Stanford, it's costing a lot more than
that in infrastructure costs that no one ever takes into consideration. And
how about all the administrative costs University's have to pay for to deal
with the *AAs knocking on their doors when their students use their latte
money to download Britney tunes, leaving the school (in the **AA's mind)
liable?
Really, the article mentions, but fails to adequately address the economies
of scale involved in the phenomena when the swapped product is MPGs and not
MP3s. As Wired often does, it paints this rosey picture of how we'll all be
downloading commercial-free TV off of BitTorrent2 in 5 years, and implies
networks will happily pay for content and abide this.
The article should've stayed focused on Bram's cool software. At least the
reporter got that part right.
Later,
Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Paul Reed -- 0xDF8708F8 || preed@xxxxxxxxxxx || web.sigkill.com/preed
Math, my dear boy, is nothing more than the lesbian sister of biology.
-- Peter Griffin, Family Guy
I use PGP; you should use PGP too... if only to piss off John Ashcroft
------ End of Forwarded Message
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/